I refused to disclose my annual income to PAYPAL and they froze my funds !

page: 5
89
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


Here is how Paypal is presenting IRS 6050w.

This is how about.com is presenting it.

Finally, this is how the IRS is presenting it:


Section 6050W, enacted by the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008, requires a payment settlement entity to report payments made to merchants for goods and services in settlement of payment card and third-party payment network transactions.


Why don't you read these, particularly the IRS own explanation, and get back to me on where precisely the IRS has authorized Paypal to freeze an account and hold money "indefinitely" ... I won't hold my breath.

Most importantly, and here is why I will not hold my breath because you seem to have reading comprehension problems, the O.P. is from Australia and is not subject to any Internal Revenue Code Section 6050W. Sigh.




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I didn't read the entire thread.. I wasn't aware the OP lived in Australia.

No need for personal attacks, makes you look like a douchebag. Paypal states that they can close your account any time they suspect fraud. This has long been their policy. How do we deal with this? Either DONT USE THE SERVICE or DONT TRY TO GIVE FRAUDULENT INFORMATION. Simple, no?

Additionally, Australia is much more strict than the US when it comes to reporting. I do not know the tax code in Australia but I know that eBay/PayPal reports your sales to the tax authority of your respective country. I don't imagine asking for your annual income to determine tax information is illegal. When you LIE about it, you have committed fraud, and therefor are subject to having your account frozen. That's what happens when you LIE.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 





No need for personal attacks, makes you look like a douchebag. Paypal states that they can close your account any time they suspect fraud.


Like you calling the O.P. a liar without even bothering to read the entire thread first?




Paypal states that they can close your account any time they suspect fraud. This has long been their policy.


Since Paypal has refused to state why they froze the account, you are making the assumption it was due to fraud, which is a pretty douchebag thing to do.




How do we deal with this? Either DONT USE THE SERVICE or DONT TRY TO GIVE FRAUDULENT INFORMATION. Simple, no?


You're not going to quit with this libelous attack on the O.P., are you? Can you prove the O.P. committed fraud?




Additionally, Australia is much more strict than the US when it comes to reporting. I do not know the tax code in Australia but I know that eBay/PayPal reports your sales to the tax authority of your respective country. I don't imagine asking for your annual income to determine tax information is illegal. When you LIE about it, you have committed fraud, and therefor are subject to having your account frozen. That's what happens when you LIE.


Again with the libel, and in all caps no less. Interestingly, you are replying to my response to your laughable IRS 6050w claim, of which you've declined to respond to and instead chose to attack the O.P., but not before calling me a "douchebag", no?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reviews.ebay.com...


Interesting read about gold and silver items on Ebay.

Take a look. It might explain something.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Strange...is it possible that the buyer was on a terrorist watch list or something similair?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
File a police report and name them as the suspects that stole your money.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
A few hundred years ago when all transactions were face to face, you had the sure knowledge that if anyone tried to withhold your goods or money you could kick them right in the knackers.
Maybe if CEO's were coldcocked by irate customers from time to time, that ivory tower they live in wouldn't seem so tall.

Also OP you need to learn the "No Turbulence" style of dealing with these kinds of entities, if you had just placed the lowest amount on the form, and foregone the rant telling them it's none of their business, when their business in their eyes has made it their business, you would have walked it.

See every interaction with companies like this as a personal victory every time you walk away with what is meant to be yours, hold your temper and your tongue, all they see is the opportunity to hold your money and take the interest on it, they are interest parasites.
Little victories, they are the sweetest.
edit on 16-5-2012 by The X because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I have used paypal for over 10 years , yes I have had a few issues but mostly my fault. I get my payday thru paypal every week and I never have any problems. If you do not set up your account correctly it will get flagged. You have to make sure you verify your bank account properly before you decide to batch out money. Paypal provides an awesome service so they do deserve their fees they are not screwing anyone. They are the largest online banking in the world. Everyone always blames the company when they have done nothing wrong,, if your account was not setup correctly and you tried to batch out money they probably flagged it to make sure it was ok, they do this to PROTECT your money.

Paypal has actually returned money to me when Sellers try to screw me over, so they have saved my money numerous times. I would rather use paypal any day then a CC online, cause for one you can get your money back if something goes wrong, two you do not have to put your CC details online. So convenient and truly and awesome service. If you do not know how to use such services , its prolly best you stick with cash only.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have an insider perspective, I managed user permissions and internal policy wikis for a major online retailer for many years. I can tell you with confidence that if PayPal is not giving a specific reason, and in fact are stating they cannot tell him the reason why, the account was tagged for fraud. Why? Because he lied when they asked for information.

If I had the user's account information I could verify this. And again, no I do not nor have I ever worked for PayPal or eBay.

I'd bet a cool grand right now that this account was tagged for fraud. Take a close look at the PayPal terms of service.. You're arguing that they have violated a contractual agreement, but they have done nothing of the sort.

Maybe he just treated the customer service representative, who he obviously has some bias against based on their location and native language, badly and they didn't like the way he was talking to them and looked for a reason to mark the account fraudulent. They found a valid one (he lied!) and did so. Again, I don't feel bad for him. He was given an opportunity to use a very convenient service and chose to lie when asked for information. Using a double negative nonetheless.

Yes, I can prove he gave fraudulent information. When asked for his annual income he admittedly lied. That is FRAUD. Additionally, the representative very clearly told him it was under LEGAL REVIEW. What were you saying about my lack of comprehension skills again?

fraud/frôd/
Noun:
1:Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

2:A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Good day, sir. =]

I hope the OP keeps us updated and is honest, you'll find that I'm correct.

edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by apoc36
 


Again, and this cannot be stressed or emphasized enough apparently, if the "account was not set up properly" then Paypal had no business activating the account, then waiting until a transaction had been made in order to withhold paying the money that was intended for the account user, not Paypal. Since the account was activated, it is hard to argue now that it was "not set up properly". It was set up properly enough for a transaction to be made and then that money withheld with no reason given.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
This is all so strange! We've used Pay Pal for years (my husband buys and sells stuff on it regularly) and we have never been asked to fill out forms such as that or provide such sorts of information.
Is that specific to Australia, and due to laws they have there?

One time we got an email requesting personal info from Pay Pal, but my husband called them right away and found out it wasn't from them, it was a scam, and that was the end of it.


Yeah, us too. We buy and sell on E bay and use pay pal without issue. We also didnt have to fill out a long application with those questions on it.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


Again you offer up anecdotal evidence to justify your libel. Your "confidence" looks like arrogance. Arrogance is a presumption of knowledge, and not you, nor anyone else in this thread has any knowledge as to why the account was frozen. You are speculating, nothing more.




You're arguing that they have violated a contractual agreement, but they have done nothing of the sort.


Oh yes, they most certainly have. A contract requires a meeting of the minds:


The parties to the contract have a mutual understanding of what the contract covers. For example, in a contract for the sale of a "mustang", the buyer thinks he will obtain a car and the seller believes he is contracting to sell a horse, there is no meeting of the minds and the contract will likely be held unenforceable.


A contract requires an offer and acceptance:


The contract involves an offer (or more than one offer) to another party, who accepts the offer. For example, in a contract for the sale of a piano, the seller may offer the piano to the buyer for $1,000.00. The buyer's acceptance of that offer is a necessary part of creating a binding contract for the sale of the piano.

Please note that a counter-offer is not an acceptance, and will typically be treated as a rejection of the offer. For example, if the buyer counter-offers to purchase the piano for $800.00, that typically counts as a rejection of the original offer for sale. If the seller accepts the counter-offer, a contract may be completed. However, if the seller rejects the counter-offer, the buyer will not ordinarily be entitled to enforce the prior $1,000.00 price if the seller decides either to raise the price or to sell the piano to somebody else.


Read that note there. The O.P.'s counter offer was not an acceptance of the contract as written. He made a counter offer and instead of rejecting that counter offer, Paypal activated his account. That is strong evidence of acceptance of the counter offer.

A contract requires mutual consideration


In order to be valid, the parties to a contract must exchange something of value. In the case of the sale of a piano, the buyer receives something of value in the form of the piano, and the seller receives money.


Paypal got their consideration, the O.P. did not.

A contract requires performance or delivery:


In order to be enforceable, the action contemplated by the contract must be completed. For example, if the purchaser of a piano pays the $1,000 purchase price, he can enforce the contract to require the delivery of the piano. However, unless the contract provides that delivery will occur before payment, the buyer may not be able to enforce the contract if he does not "perform" by paying the $1,000. Similarly, again depending upon the contract terms, the seller may not be able to enforce the contract without first delivering the piano.

In a typical "breach of contract" action, the party alleging the breach will recite that it performed all of its duties under the contract, whereas the other party failed to perform its duties or obligations.


The O.P. amended the initial contract and made a counter offer. The account was activated. Paypal failed to perform its end of that contract. This is a breach of contract.

Good faith also comes into play:


It is implicit within all contracts that the parties are acting in good faith.


The O.P. acted in good faith, Paypal did not.

No violation of public policy may also come into play, but thus far you and others have only managed to make the claim, or in your regard utter the mystical incantation of IRS 6050w then refuse to respond to refutations of that magic spell. None of you have managed to show any credible evidence that is so. The sole exception to that is wdkirk, who quite perceptively picked up on the fact that the O.P. sold silver, and this appears to be in violation of public policy for Australia. However, this is not what you are claiming and in fact you've been as bold as to claim you would wager $1,000 this was due to fraud.

To bad, in your insistence the O.P. remain honest, you couldn't be too.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yes because he said he did. He lied about his anual income. He showed the page he lied on on the first page of this thread right there in black and white ( and a little blue too). Whats wrong with calling a spade a spade my friend? If you lie on the application you have committed fraud by furnishing false information. That seems pretty straight forward to me.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


No he did not lie. He imprudently marked the box claiming $6,000 or less for annual income but then made the notation he did explaining why he marked that box. His imprudence was only that he felt compelled to mark any box at all, but the truth is right there for everyone to see for themselves, or they can read your post and others who for whatever reasons omit that fact and instead present a dishonest account of what the O.P. did.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Have you seen THIS? www.patrickpretty.com... s-weekly-earnings-payout-and-arbitrarily-withholds-payments-to-members/

Ponzi scheme? Who knows; but, that would explain their tactics to cover up the fact they have insufficient funds to pay you. Also, they THINK you are "poor" and that means they feel they can run all over you. It's a Rich eat Poor world now.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Paypal is so bad that there's a paypal complaint website. Have a look.

paypalcomplaints.org...



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
This doesn't surprise me. Paypal is a bunch of crooks and it's sad that ebay won't allow any other forms of payments like google checkout. If you check out the forums over at www.paypalsucks.com you will find these types of stories are a dime a dozen. Since they don't operate as a bank they aren't subjected to all the rules and regulations as a regular bank.

They typically "freeze" funds or like I say pocketing your money to make up for all the fraud that occurs and costs them money. I've been dealing with them since like 2001 and I've had a few issues with them. I was once on the phone for 2 hours getting transferred from dept to dept because of technical difficulties with their phone lines. LoL what a joke they just want you to hang up and forget about the whole thing. Good luck man.
edit on 16-5-2012 by stigup because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by apoc36
 


Again, and this cannot be stressed or emphasized enough apparently, if the "account was not set up properly" then Paypal had no business activating the account, then waiting until a transaction had been made in order to withhold paying the money that was intended for the account user, not Paypal. Since the account was activated, it is hard to argue now that it was "not set up properly". It was set up properly enough for a transaction to be made and then that money withheld with no reason given.





Excellent point! The seller shouldn't suffer because paypal may have done a "woops" if that is the case. I think it is a little scary to let any entity have that much control over any of your funds. It amazes me how many horror stories abound about paypal freezing accounts for months at a time.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
You are incorrect -- they are not extending credit. Your account is secured by either a bank account that they verify or by a credit card that they verify.





new topics
top topics
 
89
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join